Affirmative Duties: ∆ put π in peril, ∆ attempts to rescue π, ∆ has a special relationship with π

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Near miss (physical manifestations), bystander, special relationship between ∆ and π, erroneous report of a relative's death, mishandling of a corpse. NOTE: If physical injury has been caused by commission of a tort, π can "tack on" damages for emotional distress as a "parasitic" claim w/o the need to consider the elements of the emotional distress tort.

Duty : Describe the Default "Reasonable Person" Standard

Test: Reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances

Objective test: ∆'s individual characteristics are ignored

But, ∆ characteristics considered where

∆ has a physical impairment (e.g., disabled)

∆ has advanced or superior skill or knowledge (e.g., doctors)

Duty : What standard of care does a CHILD ∆ owe to potential πs?

< 4 years: Child owes no one a duty

≥ 4 years: Child of the same (1) age, (2) experience, and (3) intelligence under similar circumstances

Undiscovered Trespasser: Not a foreseeable victim, ∆ owes no duty of care

Discovered or Anticipated Trespasser: Must protected discovered or anticipated trespassers from all known man-made death traps on the land

Licensee (e.g., social guests): ∆ must (1) warn licensee about all known traps (natural and man-made) on the land, and (2) use reasonable care in the exercise of activities on the land

Invitee (e.g., commercial benefit or general public): ∆ must (1) warn invitee about all reasonably knowable or discoverable traps (whether natural or man-made), and (2) use reasonable care in the exercise of activities on the land

Tip: Follow the analysis applicable to MS possessors of land to determine what is reasonably prudent

Duty : Possessor of Land : Misc Rules

Firefighter's rule: Assumption of risk

Child trespassers: "Attractive nuisance" doctrine. Must show (1) ∆ knew or should have known of an artificial HSC, (2) that children were likely to trespass on the land, (3) that the artificial HSC was likely to cause serious injury b/c of the child's inability to appreciate the risk, and (4) the expense of remedying the situation is slight compared to the magnitude of the risk

Satisfying the duty for HSCs: Adults=give them warnings; Children=build barriers to entry

Duty : Statutory Standards of Care

Borrow the standard of care from the statute?

Yes: When all of the following are present: (1) π is in intended class of persons, (2) π's injury is within class of risks, and (3) statute clearly describes conduct.

Explain: why the identified behavior (fact) falls short of the applicable standard of care

Res ipsa loquitur: If you can't identify a specific wrongful act, you can use res ipsa loquitur if (1) the accident is normally associated with negligence, and (2) the accident would normally be caused by the negligence of someone in the ∆'s position

Occurrence: Occurs when ∆ breaches duty, and there are intervening events between the breach and π's injury. The key here is to think about what could you reasonably expect to happen as a result of ∆'s breach

Assumption of Risk: IMPLIED ASSUMPTION (π (i) knew of the risk, (ii) appreciated the risk, and (iii) voluntarily proceeded in face of risk); EXPRESS ASSUMPTION (express agreement); NB: not a defense to an intentional tort (that would be consent)